139
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by Blaze@lazysoci.al to c/yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Blaze@lazysoci.al 100 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Owning his own instance would probably work better for him, so removing himself from the communities where he was the sole contributor seems like a good decision.

[-] atomicpoet@piefed.social 22 points 1 month ago

Thank you so much for the well wishes.

For me, this really is the best path forward. Writing takes a lot of effort, and I like having full ownership of the stack where my work lives. Part of that ownership also means deciding how I want to interact with others—including having the option to de-federate if needed.

I know my approach to community management is a little different from most here. Even though I was on Reddit for 18 years, I’ve always felt somewhat anti-Reddit. My focus isn’t really on freedom of speech so much as freedom of association.

That’s why I don’t believe every community has to—or should—be open to everyone. Some people are a natural fit, and some are not—and I tend to be more careful about where I draw that line.

[-] Hansae@lemmy.dbzer0.com 44 points 1 month ago
[-] Blaze@lazysoci.al 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)
[-] jnod4@lemmy.ca 23 points 1 month ago

Socialising, interacting, expressing ourselves? Is this place a medical journal or a research paper? Is any of this necessary? We could remove 99% of the posts as they're not necessary. None of this stuff we're doing here is necessary for our lives. (actually might be a detriment). Are you necessary? Am I necessary? The world would still rotate. What kind of philosophical nightmare are you trying to uncover?

[-] Blaze@lazysoci.al 20 points 1 month ago

Everybody in this thread is aware AtomicPoet doesn't like being called 'bro', that's the reason of the whole debacle.

He has stepped down from his mod position, which is a better outcome than 99% of the posts in this community.

Then people still come at him with this kind of comments.

IIRC, AtomicPoet has autism, the comment above is the equivalent of bullying the autist kid who struggled to understand social norms at school.

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 17 points 1 month ago

Everybody in this thread is aware AtomicPoet doesn’t like being called ‘bro’, that’s the reason of the whole debacle

Umm, no, they aren't. Maybe they are now, after you made the comment I'm currently replying to, but I read your earlier comment and had to go back and double-check Hansae's comment hadn't been edited, because your response made no sense otherwise.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 16 points 1 month ago

Everybody in this thread is aware AtomicPoet doesn’t like being called ‘bro’, that’s the reason of the whole debacle.

Yes, but maybe the other people don't like being told that they're toxic for using a colloquialism. Why does this kind of stuff only ever go one direction? Why can't someone sit down and lecture atomicpoet at length about how wrong he is for his failure to get with the program of how other people want him to interact, instead of the other way around, and then ban him if he doesn't agree to keep all their communities completely free-form where people can express whatever they want, and ban anyone who upvotes or defends his viewpoint if anyone does?

I've got no slightest bit of ill will for the guy. His viewpoint makes sense, it's fine, and also I spent some time trying to really break it down why this approach might be a bad idea, but at the end of the day I wish him well and he's obviously welcome to set up his stuff and his communities in the way that will spark joy. It's all good. I do feel like a lot of times this "I have decided the metric for virtue and you must obey it" doesn't really go along with being willing to accede to other people's metrics of virtue when they decide to enforce that you obey it in turn. (That is why I keep joking about YPTB banning people who take the viewpoint that anything the mods do is okay because they're the mods and they've got the power within their community.)

load more comments (12 replies)
[-] jnod4@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 month ago

Ok now it makes sense why you'd ask a random guy "is that necessary"

(how come it got to this corner of the Internet everything is exhausting over here.)

Let me get this, so there's this guy who was trying to mod multiple subreddits(or wtvr) but he has an illness/disease that is commonly known to interfere with the social dynamics?

I've never read an username and never will but I'm taking a break from y'all

[-] JackbyDev@programming.dev 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Was it necessary to intentionally call someone bro just to poke the bear? Yes, it's weird that they don't like the term, yeah, but people intentionally going out of their way to call them bro is literally bullying. Yes, it's bad that they threatened to ban people for downvoting their comments, but it doesn't make bullying okay. If people want to fling valid criticism their way, that's fine, but just calling someone bro when they said they don't like it is pretty childish.

Take this comment, it is pretty clear, but doesn't call them a name they specifically asked to not be called. https://quokk.au/comment/1473591

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 month ago

I would agree, but also I would say harassing people based on their voting, and threatening them, is bullying. As the saying goes, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If they don't want to be bullied, they shouldn't bully. I'm in favor of taking advantage of teachable moments to reduce abuse in the long term.

[-] Hansae@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 month ago

A friendly good luck wish? yeah it was :)

[-] 50shadesofautism@lemmy.zip 14 points 1 month ago

Good luck bro

[-] Blaze@lazysoci.al 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

That makes sense, good luck until then!

[-] marighost@piefed.social 70 points 1 month ago

Probably a net positive for the threadiverse that he won't be moderating communities. He seemed to take it way too seriously.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 51 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

"If there is anyone else in the world who might be able to keep me in check if I do something unreasonable, I can't handle that. I need to be the ultimate authority over the little hapless users in my domain, period, end of story."

(Edit: ~~Jesus Christ man. I know nothing about this guy other than downvotegate, but he sounds like a nimrod.~~ IDK, I take it back, he seems fine. I talked with him and he just has strong feelings about this one issue and he's making a point. I still think the way he's trying to make the point is going to have trouble getting received, in the way he's doing it, but whatever, he seems well intentioned, I don't think he is any sort of bad way about it having heard him out on it.)

I keep saying: The whole moderation model where it is moderators setting up a mandatory override over content within "their place," and any users who don't like it are forced to beg for change or complain about the unfairness to others, is simply inferior to the model where it is users deciding which moderators they want to allow to override their content.

[-] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 25 points 1 month ago

It's a hard pill as a mod but you have to swallow it. People are going to do things you don't like and say things you don't like. You have to be okay with that. You will not get an echochamber of people who agree with you 100%. The choice is you can either become okay with that and apply some rules that are reasonable - or you can remove everything you disagree with pushing people away.

Look at me. I run a few communities here (and a few elsewhere), but one of them here is !taylorswift@poptalk.scrubbles.tech . I personally am a swiftie and there are dozens of us here on the fediverse. That being said, if I banned anyone for simply downvoting a post or saying something negative about her then I'd have to defederate every instance there is. Instead, I can let my own users do that for me and let people get downvoted to hell in the community, and sometimes out of those bad comments comes some real good discussion. If anything actually comes out that is against the rules, like true hate or bigotry or personal attacks then sure thing I'll swoop in and remove it, but even for a Swiftie community in the least likely space, that happens extremely infrequently.

[-] Blaze@lazysoci.al 11 points 1 month ago

To be honest I feel like in your case it would be acce to ban systematic downvoters

[-] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 8 points 1 month ago

I do, I have some math that determines how much they downvote vs upvote. I allow downvotes, but if you don't provide anything positive to the community then I ban them from it.

[-] Skavau@piefed.social 6 points 1 month ago

Do users come in and downvote stuff there because its about Taylor Swift?

[-] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 13 points 1 month ago

It's mostly All browsers who see her and immediately hit the downvote button.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Skavau@piefed.social 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I keep saying: The whole moderation model where it is moderators setting up a mandatory override over content within “their place,” and any users who don’t like it are forced to beg for change or complain about the unfairness to others, is simply inferior to the model where it is users deciding which moderators they want to allow to override their content.

What model would you be calling for? How would this work in practice?

[-] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 11 points 1 month ago

Bluesky does it by letting people (or automated systems) publish lists of content and users that that publisher is recommending that people block, and then part of your user config is enabling which of those sources you want to apply to your own feed.

I don't really know how you could apply that to Lemmy since the model is just different. Mostly I am just talking philosophy and stuff that irritates me about Lemmy's model. A simplistic approach though could be just to have each user settings include a "mod ignore" list or something alongside the blocks and etc, the list of moderators whose comment deletion and user ban settings you don't want to respect. So you can still see and interact with content that comes from any users those specific mods have attempted to block.

It would be a little bit messy, it might be better to take a step back and reengineer things to be more user-centric instead of that, but that would be compatible with existing stuff, just easy harm reduction when specific mods are widely recognized by the community to be bums. I also think just the threat of it (and the corresponding loss of credibility and control for the mod) would be a useful check on people who currently feel that lack of credibility in the community means literally nothing to them, and don't bother to try to maintain it.

(Hey @jordanlund@lemmy.world -- remember a week ago when people were talking about your moderation on LW and asked you this and this, and then you just fell silent and still like a frozen bunny waiting for the predator to leave, instead of addressing those reasonable questions?)

[-] Skavau@piefed.social 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Just focusing on one thing specifically here: Your grievance here (and others grievances with him) aren't really with Jordan at this point, but with the inability or unwillingness of lemmy.world to act. Jordan's behaviour and positions are well known. Him against the world. He won't budge. It really is up to lemmy.world now.

In theory, lemmy/piefed etc systems are far better for mod accountability on this score because instance owners and admins are far closer to the community than reddit admins. I can tell you also that atomicpoet, for instance, making this decision didn't come out of a vacuum on this point.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (61 replies)
[-] _cryptagion@anarchist.nexus 30 points 1 month ago

bro couldn't handle being questioned

[-] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 20 points 1 month ago

Even if the mod was too intense, it's sad to see communities go when they have a following. Can they be revived with their communities intact to continue on under new leadership?

[-] Blaze@lazysoci.al 24 points 1 month ago

None of them had a large following. The one potential exception could be !fediversenews@piefed.social, but it wasn't that active since @Sunshine@piefed.ca switched to !fediverse@piefed.social

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] RickyRigatoni@retrolemmy.com 17 points 1 month ago

Talk about taking your toys and going home.

[-] hotshot@lemmy.zip 16 points 1 month ago
[-] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago

Okay, bye Felicia.

[-] FenderStratocaster@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

This is one thing that gives me less hope about the fediverse. If a community gets large and this happens, I feel they fracture when they move.

[-] Skavau@piefed.social 49 points 1 month ago

He wasn't moderating any large communities.

The difference here is that if this was Reddit, an out-of-control community moderator would be untouchable and they'd have a monopoly on the community name. This doesn't happen on the Fediverse.

[-] Blaze@lazysoci.al 19 points 1 month ago

If a community gets large and this happens, I feel they fracture when they move.

They don't, what fractures communities is having similar communities active at the same time.

!television@piefed.social is the only single active community about television, it is much more active than !movies@piefed.social as !movies@lemmy.world is still open, giving https://lawsofux.com/choice-overload/ to posters, commenters and subscribers

[-] FenderStratocaster@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

I'll buy that.

[-] candyman337@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

That happens on centralized social media too though

[-] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 month ago
[-] Harvey656@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

The reason is simple: building on a server where I don’t have final control carries risk, and I don’t want to keep investing in spaces that could be removed from me at any moment.

I don't like this look AP, just say you didn't like being called out and leave it at that not go down this authoritarian path, makes you look even stranger in my eyes bro.

[-] mp3@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

If you want absolute control over the content, you don't want a community, you want a blog.

You certainly don't build a community by packing up your stuff from a major instance and do your stuff on your own small turf.

Anyway just my 2¢.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2025
139 points (100.0% liked)

Ye Power Trippin' Bastards

1572 readers
1 users here now

This is a community in the spirit of "Am I The Asshole" where people can post their own bans from lemmy or reddit or whatever and get some feedback from others whether the ban was justified or not.

Sometimes one just wants to be able to challenge the arguments some mod made and this could be the place for that.


Posting Guidelines

All posts should follow this basic structure:

  1. Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?
  2. What sanction did they impose (e.g. community ban, instance ban, removed comment)?
  3. Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entry (don’t de-obfuscate mod names).
  4. Provide a screenshot and explanation of the cause of the sanction (e.g. the post/comment that was removed, or got you banned).
  5. Explain why you think its unfair and how you would like the situation to be remedied.

Rules


Expect to receive feedback about your posts, they might even be negative.

Make sure you follow this instance's code of conduct. In other words we won't allow bellyaching about being sanctioned for hate speech or bigotry.

YTPB matrix channel: For real-time discussions about bastards or to appeal mod actions in YPTB itself.


Some acronyms you might see.


Relevant comms

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS